449 F. App'x 351
5th Cir.2011Background
- Martel sued Ensco and Torch; Ingersoll Rand was joined as third-party defendant.
- Arbitration determined fault: Ensco 25%, Ingersoll 15%, Martel 50%; total award initially based on $300,000 rather than $3,000,000.
- Arbitrator vacated judgment and planned an amended judgment due to clerical error in total award.
- Parties temporarily asked arbitrator not to amend while resolving other issues; later, arbitrator reinstated original judgment with corrected $3,000,000 total.
- District court granted Ensco/Torch’s motion to confirm amended arbitration award and denied Ingersoll’s motions; Ingersoll appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers under functus officio by amending the judgment. | Ingersoll: functus officio terminated arbitrator; no authority to amend. | Ensco/Torch: arbitrator retained authority to correct clerical error and amend. | No; exception used; amended award properly confirmed. |
| Whether the amendment was a clerical error subject to the functus officio exception. | Ingersoll: the math error reflects substantive change. | Ensco/Torch: it was a clerical error evident on face of award. | Yes; clerical error correction valid under exception. |
| Whether the parties implicitly consented to continuing arbitration jurisdiction. | Ingersoll: insufficient consent; procedural rules required. | Parties and arbitrator continued proceedings informally. | Implicit consent; arbitration authority remained. |
| Whether the district court properly confirmed the amended arbitration award under the FAA. | Ingersoll: should vacate or deny amended award; original should stand. | District court correctly confirmed amended award. | District court affirmed amended award. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Omaha Indemnity Co., 943 F.2d 327 (3d Cir. 1991) (clerical errors and mistakes apparent on face of award)
- Forsythe Int’l, S.A. v. Gibbs Oil Co. of Texas, 915 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1990) (arbitration speed and informality; limits of procedural rigidity)
- Brown v. Witco Corp., 340 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2003) (arbitrator may amend for clerical errors; functus officio exception)
- In re Anderman/Smith Operating Co. v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 918 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1990) (deference to arbitration resolutions; minimal court intrusion)
- Witco, Ltd. v. ?, 340 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2003) (see Brown v. Witco Corp. (same lineage on clerical error))